State pension age changes: ‘My children sent me an Asda van filled with food – it should be me helping them’

The i newsletter

News for free thinkers

Email address:

Football is no longer a physical game. Not in the sense it once was.

So when there are incidents we’d now term violent, the rush to punish becomes a stampede. But the truth is that incidents that are excessive in their violence are a rarity, particularly acts that are premeditated.

Since Manchester United’s 1-1 draw with Bournemouth, the internet, and some actual people in the real world, have argued the merits of both Tyrone Mings’s stamp on Zlatan Ibrahimovic’s head and the retribution dished out to the defender’s temple by the Swede’s elbow.

Of course the correct conclusion that we should come to is that both incidents are bad as each other. And they are.

“The general consensus was that Zlatan having his hair combed by Mings’s studs was unavoidable as there was no way he could put his foot down without potentially giving his opponent’s ear the Vincent van Gogh treatment. Right? Wrong.”

Both could have ended in blood being shed, not just tears, and for that reason alone we can be thankful over the past two decades that we’ve moonwalked our way from thuggish behaviour and it’s consequences.

But this is still the same game and contact such as this is an inevitability. Pride and a will to gain an upper hand take over and most players accept this. In Mings and Ibrahimovic, what we saw on Saturday lunchtime was two men who are still accepting of the gladiatorial element left in the game.

The main bone of contention in the outcry was the intent. The general consensus being that Zlatan having his hair combed by Mings’s studs was unavoidable as there was no way he could put his foot down without potentially giving his opponent’s ear the Vincent van Gogh treatment. Right?

Wrong. Wrong times a hundred wrong.

I hesitate to use the “If you’ve played the game you know he meant it” line, but your experiences can get into the mind of a player in most given situations and you know what they are capable of, with few exceptions.

Footballers don’t go out to incapacitate one another but if there is harm done, as long as it isn’t of a serious in nature, it’s seen as a positive consequence of a contact sport.

It’s a marker. A statement. A flexing of the your muscles.

The old chestnut of “If you get the ball, great, if you get the ball and the man, even better” is ancient rhetoric but it’s still about one-upmanship, exerting power and gaining psychological advantage.

Take a look back at Andrew Surman’s tackle on Luke Shaw that saw him receive his first yellow card of the game. To me, it was a perfectly good tackle on a player who had overran the ball.

Surman’s follow through caught Shaw on the ankle and the force used was deemed excessive by Kevin Friend, who was only correctly following the directive. The fact that Surman is cautioned and the players in the main events later escaped any punishment at all can make it both perplexing and understandable too.

Surely an intentional stamp and an elbow swung in retribution is worse than a tackle that results in a rap on the ankles? Of course, but the grey area of intent gives both Zlatan and Mings an alibi, particularly where the stamp is concerned.

If he wanted to hurdle Zlatan’s head, Mings could have taken evasive action, but instead his foot not only kept to its course, I’d even argue he actually adjusted ever so slightly to go looking for Zlatan.

“Both players know there is still that element of the physical fight left in the game.”

A young player might understandably be intimidated by Zlatan, in both reputation and in presence, and Mings saw a chance to exert some kind of authority. And he took it.

And without question Zlatan meant his contact too but he can still claim, as he has done ever so stoutly, that his arm was used to gain momentum and elevation as it often is when attacking headers, and Mings’s head simply got in the way.

So let’s pass judgement once and for all and move on.

Yes, both players are guilty of intent. They meant to cause harm to one another, but there is a factor here that should be taken into account. Mings has admitted that even though he denies intent, he expected the repercussions that came, and neither player has made a big deal out of either incident.

In his post-match interview Mings talked of standing up to the test and enjoying the battle and we all do, within the boundaries that we deem acceptable.

Both players know there is still that element of the physical fight left in the game.

The truth is they did mean to harm each other but not so much that you’ll miss the next game.

Just enough to perhaps make a difference that day. Just enough enough to put you off your game.

State pension age changes: ‘My children sent me an Asda van filled with food – it should be me helping them’

The i's Essential Daily Briefing

We know that sometimes it’s easier for us to come to you with the news. That's why our new email newsletter will deliver a mobile-friendly snapshot of inews.co.uk to your inbox every morning, from Monday to Saturday.

This will feature the stories you need to know, as well as a curated selection of the best reads from across the site. Of course, you can easily opt out at any time, but we're confident that you won't.

Oliver Duff, Editor

By entering your email address and clicking on the sign up button below, you are agreeing to receive the latest daily news, news features and service updates from the i via email. You can unsubscribe at any time and we will not pass on your information.